I see it in standards all the time. Retro-fitting a feature that was not considered at inception always results in a hack which never quite works and invariably comes back to bite. Retro-fitting something as important as security is not something one should be doing. IMHO of course ...
How far are they planning to take BLE? I'm not real comfortable with the driver/hacker next to me on the freeway being able to tell my car to reboot. Call me old fashion, but sometimes wires are worth the weight and extra cost.
@Rick, it is true. Reliability is a big issue, when it comes to anything wireless.... But when I asked several experts about interference issues of BLE, I got their answers saying that they are little concerned. But security? Yes, they are worried.
Security should of course be a concern, but I think reliability is a far bigger concern.
Having said that, I recently saw an episode of a TV drama in which a murder was committed by a hacker who remotely commanded his victim's airbags to deploy, causing a fatal crash. Food for thought as we march toward wireless connectivity in cars.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.